I checked http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2011/110714ae_first-pr...
It says that F35 has delivered with CTOL I think there is problem with VTOL only .
As first delivery is made I think question about VTOL delivery are specious and exaggerated.
Question about use of F35 depends on power map of world but I think US should think before spending so much money in these planes because its economy is already in huge debt .It should clean mess in the wall street first then planes .
It should not happen like Pakistan where Government has nuke but people are dying without food.

The last time a multi-use aircraft like this was attempted, it was the F/B-111. It was supposed to be both a fighter and bomber and used by both the Navy, the Air Force, and Allies. It ended up being used only by the Air Force and the Australian Air Force. It was used only as a bomber and only saw combat in the US retaliation against Libya for terrorist bombings in Germany. An Air Force general testified in congress that there was not enough thrust in Christendom to make it a fighter plane. The most good to come of it was that the Soviets copied it at great expense and waste of resources.

1900 words that say nothing about unmanned fighters with an 85-word concluding paragraph that does manage to mention unmanned fighters. Did I miss something?

If you build a UAV that has the same performance characterisitcs as an F-35, it will still have a cost so high that it begs the question if the mission is necessary. The cost overruns of the F-35 is not the reason for the prophesied demise of manned fighters. As pointed out, we can continue to build and purchase F-16s and A-10s. A switch to UAVs implies a fundamental shift in how we are fighting (low-cost small aircraft with small payloads used against small ground targets). The world is still many decades away from seeing a UAV that could establish air superiority against even today's best manned air superiority fighters. It is possible to defeat a manned fighter with a UAV, but it won't be cheap.

Clearly, some of you have been drinking on the job. China Doesn't need to build better planes; they just need to build more so-so planes and load them heavy with Missiles. No other airforce could stand against the numbers they could throw out. Think of it as a time traveler with a AK-47 and 6 clips fighting thousands of rock throwing and spear chucking cavemen. Somebody is going to be having time traveller steaks. Also, why does would that 382 billion be spent outside of our country?

I think to most people its obvious that in the series of wars we've had against less sophisticated nation states we've used three military assets - missles with air support, well trained professional soldiers, and an amazing logistics and supply chain network. Against failed states we've used drones and conter insurgency; and even if high value kit has been deployed then its not needed in any scale.

And then there is the question of war against an almost equal adverserary. There have not been ANY direct major wars since the dawn of nuclear missles. While the press tells us what a dangerous world it is - the truth is that after 1945, the per capita death rate from war has remained well below .5%. Before 1945 there were many periods it was over 5%. In my own well recorded famly tree we lost a good 23 men in various wars between 1700-1945 but none after that. We've never had it so good. When it comes to death by war it is safer to live in Ramallah, Palestine today than it was to live in a US steel town or Nepali village in 1930. Our interconnected world means we will remain a peaceful planet or we'll lose half the population in a nuclear attack. There is no scenario where we can nicely deploy 2,000+ high end planes and carry out nice strategic missions. Do we really think we are going to be fighting a conventional war with China? There nuclear rocketry will be fully in place in 10 years and they will effectively be able to Nuke us - or even easier to sell Tbonds. And for the sake of argument, lets talk about conventional war - I cringe when I read about 200 million dollars planes taking off of 30 billion dollar aircraft carriers that take 5 billion dollars a year to run. Now does anyone really think you can protect these carriers in a future war from direct missle hits, smart mines, supersonic cruise missles, robotic torpedos or space based weapons? No - in a real war all aircraft carriers would be sitting ducks and are 100% worthless. I think America should be strong but forget existing models. Missles, drones, good training, soldier protection and lot and lots of logisitcs - thats all we need.

The US is an empire and the F-35 is the perfect allegory. If it can cut projects like this, sacrafice lucrative political-industrial relationships and refocus spending on its future development and defence; she will continue to progress. If not - she will continue to squander her wealth (and credit) while other countries pass by.

Despite its high cost, the future of the fighter is very bright as most allies will find it necessary to buy a few to counter the PAK-FA T-50 figther currently developed by India and Russia. Even the Indians could opt for F-35 instead of T-50 which is likely to be inferior.

Flying unmanned drones, does not mean that no lives will be lost by the military and civilians in military operations. Perhaps, not weilding weapons in the theatre of war, absolves the person controlling drones of responsibilities in the theatre of war. Perhaps, I feel it is imperative and ethical for the soldier not to take lives by remote control. This does not mean that drones cannot be used by the enemy.
By using aeronautical and jet engineering, war has not become safer for the users of such technology, but become more devastating. By trying to make the act of war safer to ourselves, we have in fact made it more dangerous for others, as well as ourselves.
This, of course, is just a thought.

Acquiring a few of these expensive fighters may increase the capacity to do Regime changes of some of the minnow countries. I do not think that iw will scare of big continental power like Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa etc. because they are just too big to be pushed around.

I can only second the point you made. The problem, and it is a very costly one, is the way we acquire new weapons systems. The weapons procurement processes and methods used today are stunningly inefficient, cripplingly expensive, and laughably complicated; and quite often benefit only the manufacturers and not the people tasked with fighting our wars. That is the problem, and not the need for new and improved weapons. All the critics of our new weapons don't think twice about buying a nice shiny new car, when the old ones will transport them from point 'A' to point 'B' just as well as the old ones did- and I am quite certain that, cars kill many more people every year than fighter planes do...

It isn't necessary to know "exactly who" will be a threat in the future in order to prepare defenses. We cannot know the future, but we know the US will continue to want to project power around the world with aircraft carriers. Therefore the US needs new aircraft to replace retired aircraft and to advance the capabilities to keep pace with development elsewhere. If you wait until a threat appears before preparing a defense, it's too late.

The armed race has its own built-in logic to spend on useless toys to kill rather than using the fund to assist development. Most countries would say that they need this fighter for their defense against their neighbours. But against exactly who then they get really blurry.

napper wrote:
"(2) no, the F-35 can't take off from anywhere in the Pacific and strike anywhere else. (where did you get that idea? in fact, where did you get the idea that the F-35 is actually going to make it to the serial production phase????)"
---------------------------------------
Napper, your attempts at know-at-all arrogance reveal a clueless reader of Russian and Chinese propaganda.
Why don't you study history a little. Start with "Operation Nickel Grass", the US has already done the "take off anywhere" thing flying Fantoms from America to Israel.
And yes, no other country has ever done that, it's been almost 40 years. More over, no one has even tried anything remotly resembling the D-day landings, that's more than 67 years ago.